I don't know anything about marijuana, medical or otherwise, so this discussion is going way over my head. But I have taken opiates for pain. When I take them in the dose prescribed by my physician, my pain is relieved, but I do not get high, even though I know taken in higher doses it can make you high. So is it possible that marijuana in lesser quantities could alleviate pain without the person getting high?

No one ever said anything to the contrary.
So because you have not seen a change in your tolerance that means no one has? I know plenty of people who have personal experience that says they HAVE gained a tolerance. And I know plenty of people who use regularly and if they take one hit to cure a headache they are not necessarily getting high from it. Because you might get high from one hit are you saying everyone else must get high from one hit too?

i could not agree more. I never did that. To the contrary, I said that there are hundreds of compounds in pot and no one, even the hundreds of scientists who have studied it, know exactly why it help with pain. You have said that it is because it gets you high and that if it didn't get you high then it wouldn't help your pain. Who is dismissing what?

Who ever said there was an issue with getting high? I am all for people being able to get high if they want, but that is a completely different discussion. Again, you had said it was the high that was responsible for the pain relief and without being high you would not gain the pain relieving effects.
In the context of proving what does and does not cause the pain relieving properties, yes, I do have an issue with the term. How can you quantify or even define what "high" is. I have seen two people share a join and one say he was baked out of his mind and the other person say they were not even close to that. In a scientific setting you need to be able to measure and quantify. Did both people feel the same effect? Who knows? Maybe they did, but what high meant to one was not what high meant to the other.

Who ever dismissed THC? Not me. You seem to think that THC has one sole function. That it gets you high. Yes THC is at least partially responsible for getting you high. The point I was making is that you have no idea what else that THC is doing not only by itself, but also in conjunction with the hundreds of other active compounds in pot.
No we both do not know what THC does. We know one thing THC does. We do NOT the rest of the story.
Wrong. Some people that use M get stoned. There are others that do not. You have already agreed that pot with high CBD and low or no THC does not get people stoned so you have already contradicted yourself there, but putting that aside, as I mentioned before, just because you do not have a tolerance does not mean others do not. If it takes someone 3 or 4 hits to feel the affects as far as being high and they take one hit to cure a headache then they are still using pot and they are not getting stoned.

Your hypothesis was not that THC is not responsible for pain relief. Your hypothesis was that without getting high there would be no pain relief. The two things are not even remotely the same.

This almost feels like a competition. And the last thing I want to do is compete with you.

I am not trying to compete with you, but you said something that was way off base and it is things like this that have kept marijuana illegal both for medicinal use as well as recreational use for so long. It is misinformation that other people read and take to heart and they use that to form their own opinion which is then an opinion based on something that is completely wrong. I am not saying you are not entitled to your own opinions. You absolutely are. Some things just not not open to opinion though. Saying it is the high that is the only reason pot works as medicine is a dangerous thing to proclaim. The medical community has already said many times that they do not have enough information yet to know what it is about the plant that does it and uninformed people will read your message and be scared of something that can help people because you have attached a stigmatizing word to it such a "high". Let me give you an example. My grandmother grew up in a different generation (obviously) and back in her time the only people who got high were musicians and lowlifes (not really but that was the perception anyway). To her getting high is about as evil as it gets. Now thankfully she is in very good health, but lets say she got cancer and could not keep food down. She is a stubborn woman and hearing people say it is the high that is what will help her from MM, she would absolutely NOT use it, even if recommended by a doctor. She would end up suffering needlessly because of misinformation. Just something to think about. Words carry weight.

I'm OK with any product that is safe and relieves pain or misery. I'm not OK with the recreational use of the same product which screws it up for those that might be helped using that product. That being said, I don't care if the recreational users use whatever they think they need to live their delightful lives as long as they pay their own way, do it legally and their use do not impact me in any way. In other words they need to stay off the highways while buzzed, don't steal my stuff to pay for their stuff, don't run up a bunch of state funded medical bills and don't use food stamps paid for with my tax dollars. It bothers me to the max to see programs for the disabled and/or children being abused by able bodied drug uses. There are more people with fake back pain using pot that there a people with real back pain working while dealing with their back pain.

I am not trying to compete with you, but you said something that was way off base and it is things like this that have kept marijuana illegal both for medicinal use as well as recreational use for so long. It is misinformation that other people read and take to heart and they use that to form their own opinion which is then an opinion based on something that is completely wrong. I am not saying you are not entitled to your own opinions. You absolutely are. Some things just not not open to opinion though. Saying it is the high that is the only reason pot works as medicine is a dangerous thing to proclaim. The medical community has already said many times that they do not have enough information yet to know what it is about the plant that does it and uninformed people will read your message and be scared of something that can help people because you have attached a stigmatizing word to it such a "high". Let me give you an example. My grandmother grew up in a different generation (obviously) and back in her time the only people who got high were musicians and lowlifes (not really but that was the perception anyway). To her getting high is about as evil as it gets. Now thankfully she is in very good health, but lets say she got cancer and could not keep food down. She is a stubborn woman and hearing people say it is the high that is what will help her from MM, she would absolutely NOT use it, even if recommended by a doctor. She would end up suffering needlessly because of misinformation. Just something to think about. Words carry weight.

I said I believe the "high" is the pain reliever. My opinion is that if the M could not produce an intoxicating effect, it may not have a therapeutic effect. Regardless if some folks are immune to its intoxicating effects. I personally know of no one that is immune. And I have been exposed for more than 47 years.
I asked if the word "high" was the sticking point and you told me no. Then you turn right around and say these words are fostering negative thinking about M.

I would like to think my opinion and my comments were in support of MM and M as a whole.
I also stand by everything I said, regardless of right or wrong, because these statements are my opinions.
I am also open to any and all information to correct any wrong thinking.

I'm OK with any product that is safe and relieves pain or misery. I'm not OK with the recreational use of the same product which screws it up for those that might be helped using that product. That being said, I don't care if the recreational users use whatever they think they need to live their delightful lives as long as they pay their own way, do it legally and their use do not impact me in any way. In other words they need to stay off the highways while buzzed, don't steal my stuff to pay for their stuff, don't run up a bunch of state funded medical bills and don't use food stamps paid for with my tax dollars. It bothers me to the max to see programs for the disabled and/or children being abused by able bodied drug uses. There are more people with fake back pain using pot that there a people with real back pain working while dealing with their back pain.

I said I believe the "high" is the pain reliever. My opinion is that if the M could not produce an intoxicating effect, it may not have a therapeutic effect. Regardless if some folks are immune to its intoxicating effects. I personally know of no one that is immune. And I have been exposed for more than 47 years.

You are the one using the word immune. I never said that word or ever talked about immunity. I said tolerance. Again, there is a very BIG difference.

I know people who have a tolerance. I know they get medicinal benefits without getting high. How can you defend your point that it is the high that gives it medicinal qualities if that is the case?

You said "My opinion is that if the M could not produce an intoxicating effect, it may not have a therapeutic effect. Regardless if some folks are immune to its intoxicating effects.". Isn't that contradictory? If someone is immune to its affects how can they be affected by it???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roll_Bones

I asked if the word "high" was the sticking point and you told me no. Then you turn right around and say these words are fostering negative thinking about M.

I suggest you go back and read what I said because you are completely 100% wrong. I very clearly said, and I quote, yes, I do have an issue with the term

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roll_Bones

I also stand by everything I said, regardless of right or wrong

Why would you said by something if it is wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roll_Bones

I am also open to any and all information to correct any wrong thinking.

Then look at all the scientific data and listen to the experts who have repeatedly said over and over and over that they have no definitive answer on what does or does not cause the medicinal properties of the plant.